Fight Back For Public Unions Tomorrow in Columbus

[NickKmet]

I would like to point out Eyebrows, that when the soviets tried to crush unions in Poland in 1982, Reagan said "By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rightsâ€â€

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

Nick- I'm sorry that you don't see the difference, but it is there. I've stated it before (pvt unions tied to company profits, public unions tied to taxes) which is a huge difference when you remember the government is not a busniess.

 

[UrbanMasque]

The taxes we pay are their salaries. Ultimately, they can do whatever they want with their money - whether its get an abortion, buy weed, get married to someone of the same-sex, or pay dues towards a union.

 

[NickKmet]

Yes, they're not tied to company profits - but they still should have the basic right to organize themselves and promote their own interests. Everyone else can lobby the government. What makes these people any less of a citizen in that regard? Public workers serve the public good, and work just as hard as anyone else. There's no reason to deny them the right to take an interest in their own working conditions, salary, benefits, etc. Citizens are provided services by public employees, direct or indirect, and it stands that those employees should receive adequate compensation. How much public employees get paid should not fluctuate wildly based on the whim of a view politicians who will do whatever they can to score cheap political points.

Besides, if government jobs are not comparable to private jobs, how is the government ever going to hire college graduates for long term service? Both of my parents are highly educated engineers, and the last thing you'd want in the government is a bunch of high school dropouts trying to do their jobs because those are the only people who would risk taking that job.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

They still get there working conditions bargained, benefits and salaries are what are being targeted. Everyone else can lobby the government, yes, but everyone else isn't paid by the government. I can't fathom what is so hard to understand the problem about this.

Government Pays unionized workers, contracts bargained through with politicans.
union workers pay dues to Union bosses.
Union bosses spend millions to get union friendly politicians in office.
Unions continue to get better and better deals, which are not on par with the pvt. sector.


Personally I have no problem with them having collective bargaining; what I do have a problem with is the lobbying. I think, for all elections, anyone that wants to donate can do so, but it goes into a community pile and each candidate gets half(and they may not self finance for really expensive stuff). All is fair. That would end the bickering on whether corporations or unions donate too much and influence the outcome of elections.

 

[NickKmet]

I understand what you're saying eyebrows, i do. But the thing is, you're making it sound like the unions have somehow replaced all the politicians with union friendly politicians, and that's really not the case. There's plenty of opposition out there, and the fact is, even with all those union friendly politicians out there, most realize that you can't hand unions a blank check. And hardly any states do.

From the experience of my parents, i can certainly assure you that unions are not getting better and better deals these days. They've taken significant benefit and pay cuts in recent years, as well as having seen their retirement age raise significantly. The pension system here has actually gotten worse for state workers. If my parents had started working for the state only a few years earlier than they did, their pension would be worth thousands more dollars than it is. If they started a few years later, it would be worth thousands of dollars less than it currently is. My parents have taken a pay cut every year for the past 3 years due to budget issues. They are required to take days off to save the state money. We pay more out of pocket for our healthcare than we used to. And I live in a state that's been controlled at the state level by democrats for decades - democrats who are very supportive of unions. So no, I don't think your assertion is correct.

One thing that's interesting about the public sector - even in a bad economy, the government can't and probably shouldn't fire its own workers, simply because the demand for government services doesn't go down in a bad economy as demand goes down in the private sector. Unless large programs are cut entirely or the population is drastically reduced, most states actually need to continue to hire more employees to keep up with the growth of their constituencies. It's a problem when tax revenue is so heavily dependent on the economy.

I'd also like to mention that in Wisconsin, the pension system is basically fully funded from contributions from employees. There's actually no reason to cut it at all because it doesn't contribute to the debt. It's interesting though that the unions have agreed to all the financial requests that Walker has provided, but only wants to keep their bargaining rights. Of course, because Walker doesn't actually care about the budget (notice a few hundred million in new, unpaid tax breaks), he's just using what isn't really a crisis to hold a knife to the throats of the public unions. Now, if this were happening in a state with serious budget issues, like California, this would be a different story. But still, there's no reason to remove the bargaining rights.


I think you're right on with the lobbying and campaign contributions. In my honest opinion, the only way to eliminate corruption as it stands in government is to eliminate private contributions and put everyone onto public financing. Everyone gets the same amount to spend to get their message out (it would have to be a tiered system obviously based on the level and scope of the particular race). I suppose though that if this were the case, 3rd party advertisements would most likely have to be either eliminated or heavily reduced and regulated to avoid seeing all the money that would go to campaigns going to 3rd party ads instead.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

It depends on the state i suppose, one the glorious annoyances of our system. California is the real nut job here, I mean look at this stuff:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/27/343189 ... cking.html

75% of final wage is the pension. That's a bit much, considering some can retire at 50/55; considering how long people are living, that's going to be 20 years of some serious cash.

And I have seen the issue about the Wingov. giving tax breaks, but that is to hopefully draw more big corporations into the state. As awful as it is, it creates jobs. We have some pretty serious headquarters and stuff here in the county because of the breaks we give. Jobs are good.

It's a very effed up system. I'm just waiting for it to be 30 years down the line when none of this shit matters. I honestly don't see the system continuing on for much longer; none of this 2012 doomsday shit, but this "system" we live in (that is, modernity) is only about 15% of the globe, and soon the other 85% will tear it down, if we don't do it ourselves.

 

[blobbohen]

So the final vote went down in the Ohio Senate and this union-busting bill passed- by one vote. It'll go back to the House pretty quick and almost certainly get the okay there. The public unions took a big hit to the heart today.



Most of the people that were there today were from fire departments all over the state. When the debate before the vote was going down you could definitely tell how pissed they were about the whole arrangement. They figured, the same as me, that you cut from the top and not from the bottom when you're attempting to control your deficit.



As you can see there was a rather diminished presence compared to the crowds that amassed outside yesterday. I think that was a factor in the vote passing out of committee so quickly in the morning and blasting through the Senate in full when the afternoon rolled around. Either way the lousy bill passed and the public sector workers have been devalued with its passage.

All that's really left to do now is, via a ballot initiative, to rescind the effects of SB5. And I don't think that is going to be a problem since it has to happen. To fix this crap situation there's a decent amount of work ahead.

Dogmatic beliefs about the loopy notion that public unions are some sort of corrupt juggernauts are beyond absurd. When unions are robbed of their collective bargaining power, and that is exactly what this bill robs them of, then they have essentially been gutted. That is unfair. And no rational person would disagree with that.

If anyone wants to foam at the mouth because they believe some nut-job conspiracy that public unions are out to sabotage the country then go ahead and suck the fantasy down. Do not, however, call the police the next time you've been the victim of crime. Or call the fire department when your house bursts into flames. Those are unionized public institutions and they've been doing their damn job for a long time for a payment that they've earned.

There is not a whole lot to this debate so there's no point in polluting the subject with raging about generic vendettas against government.

Respect the unions and the working class people within them. They deserve it. Commit that to memory.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

To be honest, yeah. California is waaay fucked up when it comes to the unions. Too much power, too much money going to them, too much pension.

 

[UrbanMasque]

To be honest, yeah. California is waaay f***** up when it comes to the unions. Too much power, too much money going to them, too much pension.

I really don't understand where this comes from? i THINK it comes from the fact that investment firms gambled in the private sector with other peoples money and lost their savings, 401k's, and their dream of retirement - during the recession. So the attitude arises, "HEY, I lost all my money - its not fair that you get to keep yours!"

Dismantling the unions and continuing to layoff workers is not the way to climb out of the budget crisis facing these states. You cut the collective bargaining rights of police, fire, teachers, and CORRECTIONS OFFICERS what do you think will happen to the quality of service provided by those organizations when people don't feel secure in their jobs, and feel exploited by a government (AND A SOCIETY) that apparently doesn't appreciate the services they provide.

Everyone seems to be falling victim to republican buzz words. People say POWER like it means something in this debate, these aren't super saiyans! Longo please explain what you mean by power, and where that "power" comes from? And what comes along with that Power? Could it be the right to peacefully assemble that you love so much? Repubs.. small gov't - privatize EVERYTHING, and the market will regulate the price - if you beleive that this country is Doomed.

The unions are in the same boat with the gov't b/c if the gov't goes bankrupt then EVERYBODY loses. No one gets paid and people get laid off - the unions understand this, which is why they make HEFTY CONCESSIONS. They allow the gov't to renig on promises they made to them when they got hired. MLK jr. died while protecting the workers right to assemble, and after his death the Federal Gov't passed legistlation that allowed gov't workers to do so - in essence his legacy. And to see that thrown away because of profit motive is disgusting.

 

[Chris_Crime]

To be honest, yeah. California is waaay f***** up when it comes to the unions. Too much power, too much money going to them, too much pension.

I really don't understand where this comes from? i THINK it comes from the fact that investment firms gambled in the private sector with other peoples money and lost their savings, 401k's, and their dream of retirement - during the recession. So the attitude arises, "HEY, I lost all my money - its not fair that you get to keep yours!"

Dismantling the unions and continuing to layoff workers is not the way to climb out of the budget crisis facing these states. You cut the collective bargaining rights of police, fire, teachers, and CORRECTIONS OFFICERS what do you think will happen to the quality of service provided by those organizations when people don't feel secure in their jobs, and feel exploited by a government (AND A SOCIETY) that apparently doesn't appreciate the services they provide.

Everyone seems to be falling victim to republican buzz words. People say POWER like it means something in this debate, these aren't super saiyans! Longo please explain what you mean by power, and where that "power" comes from? And what comes along with that Power? Could it be the right to peacefully assemble that you love so much? Repubs.. small gov't - privatize EVERYTHING, and the market will regulate the price - if you beleive that this country is Doomed.

The unions are in the same boat with the gov't b/c if the gov't goes bankrupt then EVERYBODY loses. No one gets paid and people get laid off - the unions understand this, which is why they make HEFTY CONCESSIONS. They allow the gov't to renig on promises they made to them when they got hired. MLK jr. died while protecting the workers right to assemble, and after his death the Federal Gov't passed legistlation that allowed gov't workers to do so - in essence his legacy. And to see that thrown away because of profit motive is disgusting.

Urban for President

 

[blobbohen]

I really don't understand where this comes from? i THINK it comes from the fact that investment firms gambled in the private sector with other peoples money and lost their savings, 401k's, and their dream of retirement - during the recession. So the attitude arises, "HEY, I lost all my money - its not fair that you get to keep yours!"

....Dismantling the unions and continuing to layoff workers is not the way to climb out of the budget crisis facing these states..

And you have nailed the key point in this whole debate. It was not public sector unions that created the sinkhole of an economy we find ourselves in. The reckless banks, tax cuts, and dumbass wars of this country created this budget crisis across the states. The greed in the private sector screwed us all over and our inability to focus on this reality makes us do something irrational like blame unions.

Over $750 billion dollars into Iraq and people have convinced themselves that the public sector is the blackhole for tax dollars? Wake up from this delusion, understand that unfunded war and tax cuts create no money, and you will really understand why this country is hamstrung for money.

This is not rocket science. It is simple math.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Wake up from this delusion, understand that unfunded war and tax cuts create no money, and you will really understand why this country is hamstrung for money.

So are you suggesting not extending the tax cuts to the entire population or just the top 2%? Either way, the immediate loss in disposable income to whatever population that would no longer see these tax cuts equals a 5 to 10% (I don't remember the exact number, it was in this range) drop in the national GDP...Not exactly something desirable in the middle of a shaky and recovering economy.

Higher taxes equals less money consumers have to spend, which equals less money in the marketplace, which equals an even slower recovery than we are seeing currently.

 

[UrbanMasque]

Higher taxes equals less money consumers have to spend, which equals less money in the marketplace, which equals an even slower recovery than we are seeing currently.

The upper ub3r rich 2% are going to spend money ANYWAY - why?! because its what they do. Tax breaks, other than in the form of incentives for purchasing a specific good (like solar) doesn't do ANYTHING to stir the economy. When you give people a break, especially after a long hardship they will save their money - not spend it. The recovery will be slow, because people are still paying off debt due to living on credit for the past 3 to 4 years.

This $h!t makes me sad.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

Yes, they are going to spend money if they can make money. They can do this better in other countries though. It's all about the bottom line, and here it doesn't get them the best deal.

You guys may bitch and moan about the "uber rich" but you can thank them for most of the jobs in this country. Everything you touch in this modern world is because of someone that is/was "Uberrich."

I just read a stunning bit in my Thomas Sowell book. He was working with others to create a 5 billion dollar scholarship fund for underprivileged blacks and other minorities, and guess who told him to fuck off? Major unions (who told him that "they only deal with the middle class, we don't help the poor) and the NAACP. Guess who didn't? Major corporations, such as AT&T and the like, as well as independent millionaires.

And urbs, that link (i think?) I through up there shows the "power" of these unions, at least in Cali. 75% of final pay as a pension. That's just madness, and proof of a government that gets rolled by the unions.